On 08/16/2011 02:33 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> How do you guys find time for all this?
I live in a smallish apartment that doesn't require much cleaning and
have a room mate who handles all the errands/logistics in exchange for
free rent and access to my awesome lab. Been doing this for a few y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/14/2011 17:43, Tim Wilde wrote:
> On a serious note, though, really, what DOES it say about the real-world
> maturity / actual chances of adoption for IPv6 that Charles' statement
> above is, in fact, true?
Someone else has already pointed out
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Ihnen [mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 16 August 2011 11:57
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: Bryan Irvine; Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX); nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: How long is your rack?
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2011, at
On Aug 16, 2011, at 3:03 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bryan Irvine [mailto:sparcta...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 15 August 2011 17:42
>> To: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: How long
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: 16 August 2011 08:37
> To: Leigh Porter
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: How long is your rack?
>
> > I really do not want 18 months of research to vani
> I really do not want 18 months of research to vanish.
a fool and his data are soon parted
-- monty williams, a co-worker about 1990
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Irvine [mailto:sparcta...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 15 August 2011 17:42
> To: Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: How long is your rack?
>
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM
--- ra...@psg.com wrote:
From: Randy Bush
> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
: more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click thos
On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
> >
> > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
>>
>> I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:37:37AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond
> >> me.
> > I'm curious what your objection is.
>
> i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
> site. also your privacy issue, but tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
>
> I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4
protocol-specific d
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
wrote:
> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
> of this ...
>
> Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway
> Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed
> Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box
> Int
On 8/15/2011 8:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
site.
From a practical standpoint, a long URL provides no greater assurance.
you really have no idea what you're going to receive when you click on
any link.
life is nasty. but
>> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond
>> me.
> I'm curious what your objection is.
i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
site. also your privacy issue, but that is secondary.
> you really have no idea what you're going to receive
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:12 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
>> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
>> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
>
> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can
In a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me.
http://longurl.org/
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpEKbzQacqye.
> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me.
randy
On 08/14/2011 07:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
> On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
>
> Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as it currently
> stands and we should be working on the next big thing, of course!
> IPv42, here I come!
:)
It certainly is being debated back and fo
On Aug 14, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6
>> threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over
>> again?
On 08/14/2011 05:45 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> I don't know, but 50 people had snarfed the picture I posted within
> 30 minutes, a few hundred have by now, and it's the weekend.
Yes. Exactly. I'll start my more operational focused threads on Monday.
Plus Randy started a personal backups thread. I need
On 8/14/2011 2:43 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6
threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over
again? :)
Yes, they prove that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/14/2011 8:36 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Can someone explain the operational relevance of the never ending v6
> threads that are the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS over and over and over
> again? :)
Yes, they prove that IPv6 is not a viable technology as
On 08/14/2011 03:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote:
> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
> of this ...
Small home compute centers/networks need care and feeding as well. I've
learned a lot from this thread. Things like common designs/layouts,
cooling, POE switches et
> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
> of this ...
I don't know, but 50 people had snarfed the picture I posted within
30 minutes, a few hundred have by now, and it's the weekend.
Fun.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We cal
I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
of this ...
Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway
Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed
Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box
Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host
AMDx4Random OS workstation
26 matches
Mail list logo
